>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^MilkmanDan:
>> ^CrushBug:
I think I just discovered a new hotel hobby.

Seconded... Then again, why stop at Leviticus?

the bible is excellent as a fire starter or as toilet paper in a pinch. or if you need something to waive at people while you judge them.
if no bible, see if you can find L. Ron Hubbards Dianetics
Or John Smiths Book of Mormon
or Mohammed's Koran
or some other piece of ignorant lunacy written by fools

Joseph Smith. (dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb) Not that I care.


fixed for you

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^MilkmanDan:
>> ^CrushBug:
I think I just discovered a new hotel hobby.

Seconded... Then again, why stop at Leviticus?

the bible is excellent as a fire starter or as toilet paper in a pinch. or if you need something to waive at people while you judge them.
if no bible, see if you can find L. Ron Hubbards Dianetics
Or John Smiths Book of Mormon
or Mohammed's Koran
or some other piece of ignorant lunacy written by fools


Joseph Smith. Not that I care.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

>> ^CrushBug:
I think I just discovered a new hotel hobby.

Seconded... Then again, why stop at Leviticus?


the bible is excellent as a fire starter or as toilet paper in a pinch. or if you need something to waive at people while you judge them.
if no bible, see if you can find L. Ron Hubbards Dianetics
Or John Smiths Book of Mormon
or Mohammed's Koran
or some other piece of ignorant lunacy written by fools

>> ^thetaprime1:

In reply to this comment by Fletch:
Congrats, Libyans. Fucking animals. This is what religious nuttery gets you. Justification to do anything, no matter how base, perverted, cruel, or inhumane. God's will. Fuck you, god.


OK. If you think there was anything of God in what you saw in this video, then you aren't looking hard enough. All I saw was human hate and fear and sickness. None of those men were doing anything that has anything to do with God.
Are you shitting me? Can you not hear the numerous chants of "Allah Ackbar"? Do not believe for one second that these men aren't DEVOUT believers. What they are doing has EVERYTHING to do with their god, their Koran, and their beliefs. What you refuse to accept is that the "human hate and fear and sickness" is exactly what religion has to offer. It is their religion and the belief they are doing god's will that allows them to act so. Choosing to believe otherwise because it's more conducive to whatever ridiculous religious worldview you cling to is just another example of religious nuttery.

If you can believe in god, you can believe ANYTHING.

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim - and threat,

“I will be a second Mohammed to this generation…whose motto, in treating for peace, was 'the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword,' so shall it be eventually with us, 'Joseph Smith or the Sword.’ ”[1]

>> ^Gallowflak:

Oh. Ohhh. I read that as "koreans".


Same here! That would have just been weird.

Actually there is a whole wikipedia entry on Matthew 5:17 and the contention around it, so to say that there is no debate and never has been is clearly false. A quick google search shows that there's actually quite a bit of debate about it within the christian community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17

Also from wikipedia:

---------------
New Covenant Theology is an Evangelical position,but within evangelicalism there are divergent views on a number of topics. One of those topics is how the salvation history fits together, and the relationship of the covenants within salvation history.
Some logical deductions of New Covenant Theologians and advocates have been that since "the whole Old Covenant is obsolete", "none of the commands of the Mosaic Law are binding on believers today." Covenant Theologians, on the other hand, believe that at least portions of the Old Testament law is binding on Christians, though there is some variation on which parts and how they apply.

--------------

Sure looks like there is some debate going on to me. This is hardly the only issue that is under contention in the christian faith.




>> ^shinyblurry:

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview. The verse you quoted is exactly right..Jesus did not destroy the law, but rather fulfilled it..the ceremonial requirements are no longer necessary in the era of the New Covenant, as this was given to the jews for the time prior to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus fulfills those obligations of the law, so by following Him, we are justified. >> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

I just gave you a contradiction right there in the quote from Matthew. Asking me to go read Galatians just proves my point. Surly you aren't claiming that the rest of the bible contains no contradictions.

Which church by the way? There are hundreds of denominations, and any of them that denounce homosexuality are following mosaic law.

What about the 10 commandments? That tossed out too?

Why should we pay any attention to the bible vs. any other religious text?





>> ^shinyblurry:

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview.
>> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview. The verse you quoted is exactly right..Jesus did not destroy the law, but rather fulfilled it..the ceremonial requirements are no longer necessary in the era of the New Covenant, as this was given to the jews for the time prior to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus fulfills those obligations of the law, so by following Him, we are justified. >> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)

Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.

If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.







>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

(a copy of the messy comment above)

A collection of verses from the Qur'an about unbelievers

A person's beliefs about life (and afterlife) have a huge effect on how they live and perceive the value of other people's lives; it is nothing like blaming school shootings on violent video games, unless you assume that the shooters actually believed they lived inside a videogame.

The Qur'an, Islam's founding text, makes it quite clear that
a) The unbeliever will burn in hellfire forever (e.g. 4:56)
(nothing new here, M's recycling the holy texts already in existence)
and b) the unbeliever must be killed if he does not accept Islam (4:89), either by God or "or at our hands" (9:52); only Islam can exist on earth (2:193).
See this article on the history of Jihad and martyrdom in Islam.

Of course, the majority of muslims, like any other group of human beings, aspire to live their peaceful lives, etc. The difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism, apart from its youth, is that it is founded upon a character and his book that are highly impervious to the effects of secularization. While the Bible is an edited compilation of transcripts written by several authors over centuries, the Qur'an was written by one warrior general in the space of his lifetime; questioning any part of the book's infallibility puts the whole faith in question, a risky thing when you read what the book in question has to say about non-believers. (I could go on, but really, Harris says it so much better than me in "The End of Faith" ...for free!).

But you want evidence, so here are a few things to ponder, in relation to what the Qur'an, and thus Islam, has to say about the topics in question. (Keeping in mind that Mohamed did not invent the barbarities that the book contains; they were contemporaneous, he simply enshrined them as the "infallible" word of God. Also: Mohamed's life, as transcribed in the Hadith, is considered a role model).

Honour killing: women considered property of men (see s.4:34) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_hon
orkilling_2.html
Honour killing: adulterers should be killed anyway, no?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/07/24/2003180222

Because of sharia law's stance on adultery, it remains a crime in several Islamic countries
(sharia law is for the most part copied from the Torah/OT; in Islam, adultery is one of the worst sins/crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_(Arabic) ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Criminal_penalties

Also, denouncing rape can get you jailed... for adultery:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7943698

homosexuality: illegal in 75/195 countries; 32/48 Muslim countries. In 8 countries it is punishable by death... under sharia law, of course (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Sudan, Nigeria, la Mauritania and Somalia).

Condoning slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#Slavery_
in_the_contemporary_Muslim_world

forced marriage of minors: what Islamic doctrine/scholars say: http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/childbrides.html
women protest age limit laws: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88589
more statistics on child brides (once again, the problem did not stem from Islam, but is upheld by it... Mo+Aisha): http://marriage.about.com/od/arrangedmarriages/a/childbride.htm

Apostasy and human rights: http://www.iheu.org/node/1541

Of the 126 designated terrorist organisations, 73 (60%) are religious, 65 (51%) are Islamic extremists. To compare, the second highest ranking terrorist-fueling ideology, communism, has only 21 (17%) groups. Jihad anyone?

Government report on link between Koranic schools and terrorism: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21654.pdf

Of the 17 "Significant Ongoing Armed Conflicts of 2010", only 5 are not marked by religious ideologies (only 2 if communism is counted as a religious ideology). Eleven of these conflicts involve Islamists, who are either trying to instate an Islamic theocracy (in accordance with the teachings of the Qur'an), or they are fighting Muslim governments that are considered not "Muslim" enough.

@hpqp

I'm sorry you feel enraged. That wasn't the purpose of my post at all. As I tried to state clearly in the original post, I wanted to tell you my opinion on the issue. That's all. I wasn't trying to convince you I was right because honestly I don't think I could every provide you with enough evidence to change your mind. All I can do is tell you why I listen to the same things Harris says and see a different picture being painted than you do.

The underlined part is, I think, where our disagreement comes from. You seem to believe that everyone must see things in one way. For example, you keep citing the Koran as evidence of Islam's evil. My response to that is the same as Antonio Scalia's recent response in the Supreme Court ruling that allows video games to be covered under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution: "All literature is essentially interactive." In other words, all literature is interpreted by its readers. Whatever intent writers may have had when penning a work, once it is out of their hands and is distributed, that message is no longer the only valid interpretation. This is especially true for a work of literature whose author has been dead for over 1000 years.

There is not--there cannot be--one interpretation of Islam. Islam is a religion practiced by 1.5 billion people around the world in over 232 countries and territories. These people come from wildly different socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnicity, nationalities, education levels, and so forth. Even a cursory glance at the statistics hints at what an investigation of how Islam is practiced around the world makes clear--Islam as a religion is realized in the world very differently by people depending on a huge variety of factors including (but not limited to) local tradition, history, the socio-economic status of the practitioners, etc. They may agree with other practitioners around the world on some basic facts (Allah is the one true God, Mohommand was God's prophet) but they disagree on a great many other things. Ironically Sam Harris himself glaringly points out this disagreement in his own talks--for example when he states that 1/3 of British Muslims want to live under Sharia law... which necessarily implies that 2/3 of British Muslims don't.

So we have the “teachings” of Islam (as codified in the Koran, Hadith, and Sufi texts), we also have the widely differing interpretation and actualization of those teachings, and we also have the people (who may—as in the case of Al-Queda terrorists—have ambitions far beyond simply being a Muslim who follows the teachings as best as possible) who are doing the interpreting and actualization. Adding to the complexity is the transformation of Islamic ideas into a political ideology.

So when Sam Harris wants to criticize Islam, one of the first questions I have for him is... which one? Yet he (and you) seem to be insisting that there is only one proper way to read the Koran--only one possible way to interpret it that represents all of Islam. I find that fascinating because that is exactly the same view that fundamentalists have. The fact that millions of Muslims and non-Muslims alike--from all backgrounds including laypeople, theologians, and scholars--have widely different views about how to interpret and actualize what is written in the Koran and Hadiths demonstrates to me that this view--this fundamentalist view that Harris (and you) seem to embrace--is completely incorrect.

No, the Koran is not "pretty clear" at all. There are multiple differing translations of the Koran. There are multiple differing interpretations of those translations. And there are multiple ways in which Islam is realized in the world (radical fundamentalism, Sufism, etc.). Unlike Christianity, which gives us no end of labels for the differing interpretations of the Bible and how Christianity should be practiced (Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Unitarian, Mormon, Greek Orthodox, Armenian, and so on...) Islam does not have nearly as many labels for its differing interpretations. But those differing interpretations quite clearly exist. Even if such labels existed for Islam, we know from Christianity that within a similar group of Christians (Unitarians for instance) there is even further differentiation and interpretation between different regions, churches, and even individuals in beliefs and practices.

So, in short, to answer your question about why I don't read Harris and agree with what he say: I think the fundamental premise of his argument is wrong. His argument against "Islam" breaks down completely if he acknowledges that there can be multiple interpretations of the Koran. The fact that he is an extremely well-educated man who refuses to admit that these differing interpretations even exist hurts his credibility in my eyes even further. I hope that makes my position clear.

Thanks for reading my long-winded posts. And just to reiterate, I'm seriously not trying to convince you of anything at this point. I'm stating my opinion on the topic. That's all.

P.S. I apologize for assuming you were a guy. Because we kept bumping into each other in the same vids, I figured we had similar video preferences. I guess I figured it was more likely a guy would be interested in those vids than a girl. My mistake.

P.S. 2 Could you please, please, please, please, PLEASE, answer the question that I've been asking you across two threads and several comments now? What's Harris's/your desired goal? What's the endgame? What are you both hoping to achieve with all of this?

@hpqp

First off, thank you for taking the time to track down all of those links. And thank you for at least looking at the link I posted (though I hesitate to you say you actually "read" it as I explain below).

The title of the book is "Shattering the Myth: Islam Beyond Violence." The author states explicitly on page 4 the main premise of the book: "Islam is not violence, nor are Muslims intrinsically prone to violence." He then fills the rest of the book with economic, anthropological, and historical evidence to support his case.

And yet you are claiming the book doesn't go against anything you or Harris are saying... okay.

Next, you have mined all those quotes completely out of context and twisted their meaning to fit your agenda while completely ignoring the bulk of the work. To give just one example:

"Muslims, we often forget, do not always act as Muslims or members of a religious community; rather, they respond to economic, social and political needs that may direct conduct more than ideological signposts do."

This statement was directly addressing violence in the Islamic world--that Islam does not completely prevent people from being human and acting in violent ways when under extreme economic, social, and political pressures. Yet the Western media--and Harris in particular--would have us believe that these pressures are irrelevant... that there is something inherent within Islam that causes this violence. The rest of Lawrence's book shows this is not the case, and provides ample evidence to support the opinion. Yet, I've not seen Harris nor you provide ANY evidence for Harris's position.

Throughout our conversation, I have been asking you in good faith to make your case to me and for my part I was willing to change my mind if you were to provide some evidence that your position is correct.

You have not.

In your last post, you did finally start to list some statistics (with no sources given, I notice), but they don't really provide evidence of anything other than it is really shitty to live in a 3rd world country. I see no smoking gun there to show me Islam itself is the cause of these problems or that these problems are somehow unique to Islam. There are many other possible and indeed probable explanations (which clearly neither Harris nor you--having made up your minds already--seem willing to explore) for why, for instance, Pakistan is so fucked up other than "Islam made it that way." But even assuming for the sake of argument there weren't any other explanations, science demands evidence--as do I--because of a little problem known as "correlation versus causation." The fact that Pakistan is fucked up and is an Islamic nation does not suddenly make Islam the culprit.

You clearly feel very passionate about this. And I understand why. You genuinely believe Islam (but somehow not Muslims) is a threat to everybody (believer and non-believer alike). Did I finally state your argument correctly that time? What I still don't understand in spite of all you've written is how you came to that conclusion. From what you've written in these posts, all I can see is a lot of "correlation vs causation" fallacies mixed in with scary anecdotes followed by a bit of emphasizing the negative aspects of Islam (for example, verses calling for violence in the Koran) while ignoring the positive (verses extolling the benefits of reason, compassion, and love--including towards non-believers). Like I said before, I don't see the smoking gun and I don't understand why you do apparently see it.

Are there problems with certain interpretations of Islam? Yeah, absolutely. Radical fundamentalist Islam most certainly causes its followers to not just condone violence, but believe that violence is the only way to achieve the political aims for which radical Islam was created to achieve. But Harris isn't arguing against radical fundamentalist Islam, is he? He's arguing against the totality. He's arguing there is something inherently wrong with Islam. Okay, great. Make the argument. But for the love of science, please provide some proof. Reading selected passages from the Koran is not proof of how real Muslims in the real world interpret those passages and apply them to their daily lives (if they even do so at all). The actions of a unbelievably few individuals who choose to embrace radical fundamentalist Islam are not proof. The misadventures of nation-states which happen to be Islam are not proof. Proof will only be found through science--his argument is clearly empirically testable so I am still dumbfounded as to why he repeats the same talking points without actually taking the time to find the proof that would make his case convincing.

@hpqp

Did you read the book??? Even reading the foreward and the first chapter should be enough to show that what Harris (and you) are proposing is nothing but--in the author's own words--"a slur."

No, I don't think you are the one who gets it. You can't attack the religion without attacking the people who believe in that religion. If you say, for example, a particular religion is stupid then by default you imply that the people who practice said religion are also stupid (after all, they're following a stupid religion... doesn't seem like something a smart person would do). By the way, you are also backtracking now. When you "fixed" my quote earlier you said:

people who practice Islam as a religion are more likely to commit violence or cause misery to others in the name of religion than those who practice other religions

Either Islam causes its followers to be violent or it doesn't. If it doesn't, why is Harris making so much noise? If it does, where's the evidence of that? I keep bolding it because you keep misunderstanding it. A newspaper article is not empirical evidence. A quote from the Koran is not empirical evidence. A study of domestic violence that breaks down rates of domestic violence between religious beliefs and finds that there is a statistically significant higher chance of it occurring in a Muslim home--now THAT might be evidence (depending on a lot of factors, such as the methodology used, whether other factors such as education and income were controlled for, whether the study found causation and not just correlation, etc.). But neither your nor Harris provides such evidence, which is what I need before I go off and decide that millions of people around the world are a potential threat to me and themselves due to their beliefs and I should campaign actively against those beliefs.

Now, if Harris's (and your) argument is that maybe Islam might cause some people to be violent then that is something else entirely. We have to ask under what conditions does that happen? We also need to ask which Islamic interpretation we are talking about, because just as the term Christianity refers to an incredibly diverse group of faiths (everything from 7th Day Adventists to Unitarians), Islam refers to an incredibly diverse group of people who have some similar core beliefs but differ greatly in the details of how the faith is practiced. Neither Harris nor you are taking that third option though. Your statements in this thread and his statements in this and other videos on the topic are categorical.

Therefore, I am asking you to prove to me that Islam is the religious ideology causing the most harm in the world. No, it isn't obvious, any more than God's existence is obvious because of the vast variety of animal life that lives on earth. Stats? Figures? Studies that support your view? You don't have them, do you? You believe what you believe without evidence and given that you are a follower of Harris, Dawkins, etc. that is just plain ironic.

This has nothing to do with cultural relativistic respect. This has to do with the truth--which according to Harris and Dawkins and the rest can only be found by science. So I'm saying to Harris--do some goddamned science and prove what you are saying. Prove that people in Islamic countries are suffering because of Islam and not because we colonized them, used them as pawns in our own political games, got overthrown or kicked out, then either left them to rot or turned them into our oil suppliers while funding autocratic regimes and looking the other way as they tortured and killed their own people. Prove that it's Islam and not the appalling lack of medical care, education, political access, or access to a reliable legal system that accounts for the violence. Prove that the tenets of Islam are a significant factor in the violence and not just lipservice paid to justify it. Then I will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say. Until then, it's just speculation and fearmongering.

@hpqp
@marinara (because it indirectly addresses your post)

First, did you even read the book?

Second, quoting the Koran is not evidence--hard, empirical, data. You can quote-mine any religious text--including Buddhist sutras--for passages that can be interpreted out of context in quite a negative way. Where is the empirical data that shows all Muslims not only literally believe this but actively act on those beliefs? Hell, how many Muslims have you personally talked to and asked about those passages? I would consider that as "action-research" and be willing to hear the evidence you came up with.

Third, those links you posted are not evidence. They are reports of particular instances of violence whose causes are far more complex than simply "Islam made them do it." If Islam causes this kind of behavior, why aren't they stoning women in Malaysia, Tunisia, Algeria, Indonesia, or a host of other Muslim countries? How is it that the actions of a relatively few individuals within an enormous group can damn the entire group? How is it that Harris can ignore cultural, educational, and socio-economic factors involved in these incidents and claim with certainty that Islam is to blame when he doesn't seem to have any evidence to support his case?

The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam.

Again, I ask you to show me the evidence of that. He can claim violence is caused by the specific tenets of Islam all he likes but I've never seen him show any empirical evidence that proves his point. And you know why? Because he can't. Such evidence doesn't exist. Sam Harris may be a brilliant scientist but he is a gobsmackingly awful anthropologist/historian/philosopher/theologian.

In conclusion, Sam Harris doesn't make good points at all. He spouts opinions unsupported by empirical data with a clear intent to espouse fear and hatred against one particular religious group. He is no better than a KKK member standing up there telling us how dangerous black people are and using pseudo-data like the number of black people currently in jail or anecdotal evidence of a white woman raped by a black man to prove his case. He lumps all members of a religious group (diverse in nationalities, ethnicity, cultures, socio-economic backgrounds, education, etc.) into one category and pretends they're all the same. His actions are detestable, all the more so because he is not some uneducated hick but a respected scientist who should know better than to claim things without having the evidence to back them up.